CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER I
The Lawyer and Society
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the RULE 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give
constitution, obey the laws of the land and anything of value to representatives of the mass
promote respect for law and for legal processes. media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
attract legal business.
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 4 — A lawyer shall participate in
the development of the legal system by initiating
RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or
or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
improvement of the administration of justice.
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 5 — A lawyer shall keep abreast of
RULE 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any
legal developments, participate in continuing legal
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
education programs, support efforts to achieve
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
high standards in law schools as well as in the
RULE 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his practical training of law students and assist in
clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it disseminating information regarding the law and
will admit of a fair settlement. jurisprudence.
CANON 2 — A lawyer shall make his legal CANON 6 — These canons shall apply to
services available in an efficient and convenient lawyers in government service in the discharge of
manner compatible with the independence, their official tasks.
integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
RULE 6.01 The primary duty
RULE 2.01 A lawyer shall not reject, except of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or convict but to see that justice is done. The
the oppressed. suppression of facts or the concealment of
RULE 2.02 In such cases, even if witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of
the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for
refuse to render legal advice to the person disciplinary action.
concerned if only to the extent necessary to RULE 6.02 A lawyer in the government
safeguard the latter's rights. service shall not use his public position to promote
RULE 2.03 A lawyer shall not do or permit to or advance his private interests nor allow the latter
be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal to interfere with his public duties.
business. RULE 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after
RULE 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates leaving a government service, accept engagement
lower than those customarily prescribed unless the or employment in connection with any matter in
circumstances so warrant. which he had intervened while in said service.

CANON 3 — A lawyer in making known his CHAPTER II

legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, The Lawyer and the Legal Profession
dignified and objective information or statements
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all
of facts.
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
RULE 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit profession, and support the activities of the
the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, integrated bar.
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
RULE 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
knowingly making a false statement or
legal services.
suppressing a material fact, in connection with his
RULE 3.02 In the choice of a firm name, no application for admission to the bar.
false, misleading or assumed name shall be used.
RULE 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the
The continued use of the name of a deceased
application for admission to the bar of any person
partner is permissible provided that the firm
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
indicates in all its communications that said partner
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
is deceased.
RULE 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in
RULE 3.03 Where a partner accepts public
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
the law allows him to practice law concurrently.
discredit of the legal profession.
 CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself RULE 11.01 A lawyer shall appear in court
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his properly attired.
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
RULE 11.02 A lawyer shall punctually appear
tactics against opposing counsel.
at court hearings.
RULE 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his
RULE 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from
professional dealings, use language which is
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
behavior before the Courts.
RULE 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or
RULE 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute
indirectly, encroach upon the professional
to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the
have no materiality to the case.
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give
proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 9 — A lawyer shall not, directly or CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
law. speedy and efficient administration of justice.
RULE 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to RULE 12.01 A lawyer shall not appear for
any unqualified person the performance of any task trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on
which by law may only be performed by a member the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he
of the Bar in good standing. will adduce and the order of its profference. He
should also be ready with the original documents
RULE 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or
for comparison with the copies.
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except: RULE 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement
with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's RULE 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
period of time to his estate or to persons specified memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
in the agreement; or submitting the same or offering an explanation for
his failure to do so.
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or RULE 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a Judgment
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-
or misuse Court processes.
lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the
plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing RULE 12.05 A lawyer shall refrain from
arrangement. talking to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under examination.
CHAPTER III
RULE 12.06 A lawyer shall not knowingly
The Lawyer and the Courts
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, impersonate another.
fairness and good faith to the court.
RULE 12.07 A lawyer shall not abuse,
RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; inconvenience him.
nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled
RULE 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
by any artifice.
behalf of his client, except:
RULE 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper,
authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
the language or the argument of opposing counsel,
like: or
or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative b) on substantial matters, in cases where
by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which has not been proved. which event he must, during his testimony, entrust
the trial of the case to another counsel.
RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the
the ends of justice. merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and
appearance of influencing the Court.
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar RULE 13.01 A lawyer shall not extend
conduct by others. extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
 RULE 13.02 A lawyer shall not make public RULE 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring
statements in the media regarding a pending case with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
tending to arouse public opinion for or practicable whether the matter would
against a party. involve a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
RULE 13.03 A lawyer shall not brook nor
prospective client.
invite interference by another branch or agency of
the government in the normal course of judicial RULE 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the
proceedings. rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
CHAPTER IV
The Lawyer and the Client RULE 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
CANON 14 — A lawyer shall not refuse his concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
services to the needy.
RULE 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written
RULE 14.01 A lawyer shall not decline to consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
represent a person solely on account of the latter's conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his
own opinion regarding the guilt of said person. RULE 15.05 A lawyer, when advising his
client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
RULE 14.02 A lawyer shall not decline, merits and probable results of the client's case,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an neither overstating nor understating the prospects
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus of the case.
curiae or a request from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of RULE 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply
free legal aid. that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
RULE 14.03 A lawyer may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client unless: RULE 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the principles
a) he is in no position to carry out the work of fairness.
effectively or competently; or
RULE 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in
b) he labors under a conflict of interest another profession or occupation concurrently with
between him and the prospective client, or the practice of law shall make clear to his client
between a present client and the prospective whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
client. capacity.
RULE 14.04 A lawyer who accepts the cause CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the
of a person unable to pay his professional cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
fees shall observe the same standard of conduct trust and confidence reposed in him.
governing his relations with paying clients.
CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
 Intro
Cayetano v Monsod
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of
the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1,
Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders
of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent does not possess the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.

RULING: No. Atty Monsod possesses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. (MODERN APPLICATION OF LAW)

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and
the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the
petition is DISMISSED.

In Re: Al Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1992)

FACTS: On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the crime of homicide in connection
with the death of one Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries
upon him in course of "hazing" conducted as part of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the
accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years.

Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court. The
application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the
probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise him.

Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but
was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.

On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of
law. He averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that his probation period did not last for
more than 10 months.

ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and be admitted to the practice of law

RULING: Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the
requirement of good moral character imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should show to
the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased
student and to the community at large. In short, he must show evidence that he is a different person now, that he has
become morally fit for admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation, of the names of the parents or
brothers and sisters of Camaligan from notice

Phil Lawyer Association v Agrava

FACTS: On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an examination for
the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.
According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and
technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar
examination is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and is already qualified to practice
before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent
cases “does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical
knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the
examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests,
this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers are still required to take the aforementioned examination for them to appear and
practice before the Patent Office

RULING: No. It is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and training, should be
allowed to practice before the Patent Office, without further examination or other qualification.

The Supreme Court held that the practice of law already includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the
representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their
opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent
Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to
be established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any
party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of
business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or
technical men, which is not the case.

In Re Al Argosino, Bar Matter No. 712 (1997)

FACTS: This is a continuation of 246 SCRA 14 ruling that Al Argosino must first submit to the Court evidences that he
may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those who are
seeking admission to the bar.

In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed
by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner
likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the
hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer
to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.

ISSUE: WON Argosino may now take oath of office after submitting the required evidences

RULING: Yes.

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's
oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the following, admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad
moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for
civic duties and public service. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death
of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general
tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating. We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT
a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the
sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster,
fairer and easier for everyone concerned. The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the
assistance he has been giving to his community. As a lawyer, he will now be in a better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society.

Ventura v Samson
FACTS: MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA executed a Sworn Statement dated 19 April 2002 and a Supplemental Complaint
dated 10 May 2002 stating therein that the crime of RAPE was committed against her person sometime in December,
2001 and on 19 March 2002 when she was merely thirteen (13) years of age by herein Respondent ATTY. DANILO S.
SAMSON, then thirty eight (38) years old, married to Teresita B. Samson, Filipino and resident of Barangay 5, San
Francisco, Agusan Del Sur, Philippines

ISSUE: Is the above action considered as “grossly immoral conduct and could it be a ground for disbarment?

RULING: Yes. From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we
find that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross
immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant
but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed
and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he
procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for
the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.

Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for
a time was under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or
was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and
highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession
and should be disciplined accordingly.

In Re: Borromeo
FACTS: The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, who has, for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to the
present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors
supposedly committed by the courts, including the Supreme Court. Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance
with the law had given him competence to undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in numerous
original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the results have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid of his
interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings, he has seen fit to compose and circulate many
scurrilous statements against courts, judges and their employees, as well as his adversaries, for which he is now being
called to account. In those publicly circulated writings, he calls judges and lawyers ignorant, corrupt, oppressors,
violators of the Constitution and the laws, etc.

Atty.’s digest
FACTS: Borromeo borrowed money from 3 banks with lien on his property, and later on was not able to pay the
loan. Thus, the mortgage was foreclosed. 3 banks, 3 loans, and 3 cases. He filed cases against the judge, opposing
counsel, personnel of the court, and appealed to the court of appeals. He is a non-lawyer who handle his case. And
filed a total of 53 cases based on this issue.

ISSUE: WON his Pro Se Practice is allowed.

RULING: While Pro Se Practice is allowed, it is not advisable. And because of his act and attitude, the court fined
him for Php1,000 and 10 days imprisonment.

ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court?

RULING: No. There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for abuse of and interference with
judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding,
obstructing and degrading the administration of justice. He stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without
merit, rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory,
obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on
nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the
judges and court officers, including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court
dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act on his repetitious and
largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions. On the contention that he "was exercising his rights of freedom
of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution
(Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials." The constitutional rights invoked by him
afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting lawyers, judges, court
employees; and other persons, for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing
them into disrepute and disrespect

In Re: Dacanay
FACTS:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in
December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail
of Canada's free medical aid program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.

On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003),
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. 1 On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before
the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to
resume his law practice.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine
citizenship in May 2004.

RULING:
No. Because he lost his Filipino citizenship by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save
in cases prescribed by law. 15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225]." 17 Therefore,
a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he
reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in
the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice." 18 Stated otherwise, BEFORE A LAWYER WHO REACQUIRES FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP PURSUANT TO RA
9225 CAN RESUME HIS LAW PRACTICE, HE MUST FIRST SECURE FROM THIS COURT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO,
CONDITIONED ON:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially
significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner's knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal
developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer's oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 2 It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is
both a power and a duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
the public welfare.

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of
the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and
payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions REQUIRED FOR
MEMBERSHIP IN GOOD STANDING IN THE BAR and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer
of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him
for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.

Moreover, ADMISSION TO THE BAR INVOLVES VARIOUS PHASES such as furnishing satisfactory proof of educational,
moral and other qualifications; 7 passing the bar examinations; 8 taking the lawyer's oath 9 and signing the roll of
attorneys and receiving from the clerk of court of this Court a certificate of the license to practice.

In Re: Medado
FACTS:
Petitioner failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.

Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance
of the PICC was probably just an attendance record. By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working.
He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation
practice. Thus, he operated "under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the
Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer" and "the matter of signing in the Roll of
Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten.

In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide
his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited. 10 Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was
unable to provide his roll number.

About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign
in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:
WON Petitioner be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys after 30 years

RULING:
Yes, but after 1 year from this decision. With some penalty by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1)
year after receipt of this Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law,
we likewise see it fit to fine him in the amount of P32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is
not allowed to engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing any act that constitutes practice of law
before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by this Court.

At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him
the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.

In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.

For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant Petition to
Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third party who called this Court's attention to petitioner's
omission; rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 30
years. For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law.

All these demonstrate Medado's worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. While the practice of
law is not a right but a privilege, 20 this Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who
have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession.

However, while an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts 23
as it negates malice or evil motive, 24 a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its consequences.

Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when
he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys.
However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record, he could no longer
claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification.
Catu v Rellosa
FACTS:
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot 1 and the building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres
Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth
C. Diaz-Catu 2 and Antonio Pastor 3 of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate
the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in theLupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of
the 5th District of Manila 4 where the parties reside.

Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. 5 When the
parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate
action in court.

Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Because
of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, 6 claiming that respondent committed an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.

ISSUE:
WON a punong barangay, can practice profession as lawyer.
WON Atty. Rellosa complied the requirements in order to practice law.
WON Atty. Rellosa should be disbarred or suspended.

RULING:
1. Yes
For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160 12 governs:
SEC. 90. Practice of Profession. — (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing
their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief
executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of the
Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or
local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on
occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary
compensation therefrom.

2. No. A LAWYER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED TO PRACTICE LAW MUST SECURE PRIOR
AUTHORITY FROM THE HEAD OF HIS DEPARTMENT

Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides:
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any
commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the
Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and
responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is
granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the agency to the
end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, that no permission is necessary
in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict between his private
interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management
of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors. (emphasis supplied) c

Thus, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan may practice their
professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours. Accordingly, as punong
barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior
permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations.
3. Suspended.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:g
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. (emphasis supplied)

For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession,
respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity
of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his
oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is
sternly WARNED that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Ciocon – Reer v Lubao

FACTS:
The OCA noted Karaan's modus operandi of offering free paralegal advice and then making the parties execute a
special power of attorney that would make him an agent of the litigants and would allow him to file suits, pleadings
and motions with himself as one of the plaintiffs acting on behalf of his "clients." The OCA noted that Karaan's
services, on behalf of the underprivileged he claimed to be helping, fall within the practice of law.

However, Karaan alleged that he did not indicate in the pleadings that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR,
Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number and that would not qualify him to be “engaged in the practice of law.”

ISSUE:
WON Karaan was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

RULING:
Karaan was engaged in unauthorized practice of law. The fact that Karaan did not indicate in the pleadings that he
was a member of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number does not detract from the fact
that, by his actions, he was actually engaged in the practice of law.

In Cayetano v. Monsod, 3 the Court ruled that "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. 4 Generally, to practice law is to
render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

Under Section 3 (e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person "[a]ssuming to be an attorney
or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority," is liable for INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF
COURT. Under Section 7 of the same rules, a respondent adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed
against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank "may be punished by a fine not
exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both." If a respondent
is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a lower court, he "may be punished by a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both."

The OCA recommended that Karaan be cited for indirect contempt and be sentenced to serve an imprisonment of ten
days at the Manila City Jail, and to pay a fine of P1,000 with a warning that a repetition of any of the offenses, or any
similar or other offense against the courts, judges or court employees will merit further and more serious sanctions.
However, the records would show that Karaan is already 71 years old. In consideration of his old age and his state of
health, we deem it proper to remove the penalty of imprisonment as recommended by the OCA and instead increase
the recommended fine to P10,000.

Rule 138 Rules of Court

RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. Who may practice law. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission as a
member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and
resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in
the Philippines.

Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. — Citizens of the United
States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the
courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before
the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do

solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts
as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.

Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. — Applicants for admission who, being Filipino
citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of
appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can
show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice
began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court,
be admitted without examination.

Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All applicants for admission other than those
referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they
have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate,
accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further
evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in
a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law,
public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and
legal ethics.

Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a
certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish,
history and economics.

Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the
Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the
examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit
and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing
the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as
to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence,
and citizenship.

Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the
Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the
beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall
be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law;
Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private
and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. — Persons taking the examination shall
not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a
copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally
without help from anyone.

Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read
his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering
the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or
commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination
shall be given.

Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place
annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on
bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and
Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day:
Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (afternoon).

Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be
appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act
as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the
Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be
published in each volume of the official reports.

Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee,
and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any
assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the
examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent
disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.

Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent
in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative
weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law;
10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics
and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.

Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. — Not later than February 15th after the
examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be
examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for
three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that
they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a
recognized law school.

The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath
that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary
students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.

Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the
Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.
Section 18. Certificate. — The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all
the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a
certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice.

Section 19. Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to
practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with
truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or
law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to
accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any
man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may
be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent
any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for
his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown,
require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he
appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may
thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being
employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved
in his official transactions.

Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. — An attorney who
appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on appeal,
unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate court.

Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by
any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.

Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney.
No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services
shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. — When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands
money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
Section 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by
the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine
that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the
advance party.

A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client and
attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be
entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the
discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney
shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment,
rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.

Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The Court of Appeals or
a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding
section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme
Court in the premises.

Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme
Court. — Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the
Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was
based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the
facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as
such, as the facts warrant.

Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or suspended
from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable
notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.

Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an
attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the
party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom
by the court for sufficient cause shown.

Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. — Subject to availability of funds as may be provided by the
law the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in such sum
as the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall be not
less than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2)
One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital
offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital offenses.

Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. — Any official or other person
appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Government of the Philippines shall have all the
rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said government has an interest direct or
indirect.

Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his
litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney.
In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or
of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional
advice to clients.

Section 36. Amicus Curiae. — Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the Court to appear as amici
curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.

Section 37. Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in
a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to
be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the same right
and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of
his just fees and disbursements.

Rule 138 – A Rules of Court

RULE 138-A

Law Student Practice Rule

Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular
four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program
approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case
before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct
supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any
and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney
for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and
client shall apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student shall comply with the standards of professional
conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice
may be a ground for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).
CANONS 1 to 6
02. Moreno v. Araneta
CHAPTER 1 – THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
Facts Ruling
Before this Court is a IBP (Commissioner
complaint for disbarment Buencamino): The evidence of
CANON 1 against Atty. Ernesto S. the complainant was not
– A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTIUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF Araneta for deceit and formally offered in evidence.
THE LAND, AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL nonpayment of debts. There is no evidence of a letter
PROCESSES. of the complainant informing
The complaint, dated 25 the respondent about the "stop
September 1972, was filed in payment" or even any written
01. Bongalonta v. Castillo this Court by Maria Elena demand by the complainant to
Moreno on two causes of the respondent that the
Facts Ruling action. The first cause of payment of the treasury warrant
In a sworn letter-complaint IBP: The notice of levy in favor action involved Treasury having been "stopped" he
dated February 15, 1995, of Bongalonta and her husband Warrant No. B- 02997354 should reimburse her with what
addressed to the Commission is a superior lien on the said issued by the LRC in favor of he received as consideration for
on Bar Discipline, National registered property of the Lira, Inc., and indorsed by this check. Same considered,
Grievance Investigation Office, Abuel spouses over that of Araneta (respondent), there is no cause to fault the
Integrated Bar of the Gregorio Lantin. purportedly as president of respondent for the first cause of
Philippines, complainant Sally the said corporation, to action.
Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Consequently, the charge Moreno, in consideration of
Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, against the two respondents the amount of P2,177. The On the other hand, the
members of the Philippine Bar, (i.e. representing conflicting complaint alleged that almost respondent admits having
with unjust and unethical interests and abetting a a year later, the warrant was issued the two checks to the
conduct, to wit: representing scheme to frustrate the dishonored. complainant for her to show to
conflicting interests and execution or satisfaction of a her creditors that money was
abetting a scheme to frustrate judgment which Bongalonta The second cause of action coming her way, when in fact he
the execution or satisfaction of and her husband might obtain involved Araneta's is presumed to have been aware
a judgment which complainant against the Abuel spouses) has nonpayment of debts in the when he issued said checks that
might obtain. no leg to stand on. amount of P11,000, which he his account with the bank
assured and promised to that against which checks were
Complainant filed cases with However, as to the fact that he would return the said drawn was already closed, as
the RTC against spouses Abuel. indeed the two respondents amount within the shortest was discovered from the fact
(Criminal- estafa and Civil- placed in their appearances possible time. He failed to that the checks were dishonored
preliminary attachment or and in their pleadings the same make do of his promises. for said reason.
notice of levy of a lien of a piece IBP No., respondent Atty. Respondent issued checks in
of land owned by the spouses Pablito M. Castillo deserves to favor of complainant, but the However beneficial it may have
favorable to complainant.) Atty. be SUSPENDED for using, same was dishonored and been to the complainant, this
Pablito Castillo was the counsel apparently thru his negligence, marked “Bank Closed.” act of the respondent as a
of the Sps. Abuel in the the IBP official receipt number lawyer is abhorrent and against
aforesaid criminal and civil of respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Respondent: Complainant the exacting standards of
cases. Martija. Use by counsel of borrowed from him through morality and decency required
another’s IBP receipt number the treasury warrant (first of a member of the Bar.
During the pendency of these constitutes falsehood. cause) as attorney’s fees. He
cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed denied borrowing any amount Recommendation: Suspension
a civil case for collection of a SC agrees with IBP. from Moreno. He admitted for 3 months.
sum of money based on a that he issued the two
promissory note, also with the the practice of law is not a right undated checks in her favor, IBP Board of Governors: Agree,
RTC, against the Sps. Abuel. In but a privilege bestowed by the but maintains that he had no but increase to 6 months.
the said case Gregorio Lantin State on those who show that intention of negotiating them.
was represented by Atty. they possess, and continue to He avers that he gave them to SC: Agree except penalty.
Alfonso Martija. possess, the qualifications Moreno, allegedly upon her
required by law for the request, only so she could Although BP Blg. 22 had not yet
It is further alleged that in all conferment of such privilege. show the bank where she was been passed at that time, the
the pleadings filed in these One of these requirements is working that she "had money IBP correctly found this act
three (3) aforementioned cases, the observance of honesty and coming to her." "abhorrent and against the
Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. candor. Courts are entitled to exacting standards of morality
Alfonso Martija placed the expect only complete candor Complainant: The check for and decency required of a
same address, the same PTR and honesty from the lawyers P11,000 "belonged" to the member of the Bar," which
and the same IBP receipt appearing and pleading before Philippine Leasing "belittles the confidence of the
number. them. A lawyer, on the other Corporation, which she public in him and reflects upon
hand, has the fundamental managed when her father his integrity and morality."
Complainant: The civil case duty to satisfy that passed away. She claimed she
filed by Gregorio Lantin was expectation. For this reason, he signed the check in blank Indeed, in recent cases, we have
merely a part of the scheme of is required to swear to do no sometime in 1969 when she held that the issuance of
the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the falsehood, nor consent to the fell seriously ill and gave them worthless checks constitutes
satisfaction of the money doing of any in court. to Araneta who was then gross misconduct, as the effect
judgment which complainant helping her in the "transcends the private
might obtain in her civil case. Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty management of the interests of the parties directly
of committing a falsehood in corporation. She concluded involved in the transaction and
Respondent Castillo: Fault of violation of his lawyer's oath that Araneta falsely filled up touches the interests of the
his secretary. and of the Code of Professional the check "in a desperate bid community at large. The
Responsibility. to turn the tables on her." mischief it creates is not only a
Topic: Lawyer’s Oath (Do no wrong to the payee or holder,
falsehood) Topic: Moral Turpitude but also an injury to the public"
 since the circulation of valueless September 18, 2003, CA sought to execute the CA
commercial papers "can very affirmed the NLRC's ruling with Decision which had already
well pollute the channels of modification, ordering PT&T to been final and executory. He
trade and commerce, injure the pay complainant separation tried to distort the findings of
banking system and eventually pay in lieu of reinstatement. the CA.
hurt the welfare of society and July 19, 2004, the CA Decision
the public interest. It is a became final and executory Court agrees with IBP regarding
manifestation of moral respondent’s gross immorality
turpitude. October 25, 2004, complainant and observes that his
filed a Writ of Execution for the infractions constitute gross
Moral turpitude "includes enforcement of CA’s judgment. misconduct.
everything which is done At this point, the case had
contrary to justice, honesty, already been assigned to the Jurisprudence illumines that
modesty, or good morals." 24 It new LA (respondent). IMMORAL CONDUCT involves
involves "an act of baseness, Complainant went to acts that are willful, flagrant, or
vileness, or depravity in the respondent’s office to follow- shameless, and that show a
private duties which a man owes up on the matter and figured moral indifference to the
his fellow men, or to society in the former’s monetary awards, opinion of the upright and
general, contrary to the but their values differed. respectable members of the
accepted and customary rule of community. It treads the line of
right and duty between man and November 7, 2005, respondent grossness when it is so corrupt
woman, or conduct contrary to issued a writ of execution, as to constitute a criminal act,
justice, honesty, modesty, or where the monetary awards or so unprincipled as to be
good morals." were reduced to the effect that reprehensible to a high degree,
it modifies the decision of the or when committed under such
Respondent Araneta is CA. scandalous or revolting
disbarred and his name is circumstances as to shock the
ordered stricken from the roll of Respondent: denied the community's sense of decency.
attorneys. accusations, maintaining that On the other hand, GROSS
he merely implemented the CA MISCONDUCT constitutes
03. Abella v. Barrios, Jr. Decision which did not provide "improper or wrong conduct,
for the payment of backwages. the transgression of some
Facts Ruling He also claimed that he never established and definite rule of
An administrative complaint IBP (Commissioner Limpingco): demanded a single centavo action, a forbidden act, a
filed by Eduardo A. Abella respondent tried to twist the from complainant as it was in dereliction of duty, willful in
against Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., meaning of the CA Decision out fact the latter who offered him character, and implies a
for disbarment, averring that of all logical, reasonable and the amount of P50,000.00. wrongful intent and not mere
respondent violated the Code grammatical context in order to error of judgment.
of Professional Responsibility favor PT&T. Notwithstanding Issue: Whether respondent is
for: their agreement, immoral and guilty of gross immorality for Court deems it proper to,
illegal as it was, respondent his violation of Rules 1.01 and instead of disbarring him again,
(a) soliciting money from later went as far as turning the 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, impose a fine in the amount of
complainant in exchange for a proceedings into some bidding Canon 6 of the Code. P40,000.00 in order to penalize
favorable resolution; and war which eventually resulted respondent's transgressions as
(b) issuing a wrong decision to into a resolution in favor of Topics: Code of Professional discussed herein and to equally
give benefit and advantage to PT&T. In this regard, Responsibility, Practice of Law deter the commission of the
PT&T. respondent was found to be same or similar acts in the
guilty of gross immorality. future.
On January 21, 1999,
complainant filed an illegal Recommendation: disbarment. The practice of law is a privilege
dismissal case against accorded only to those who
Philippine Telegraph and SC: The above-cited rules, which continue to meet its exacting
Telephone Corporation (PT&T) are contained under Chapter 1 quali1cations. Verily, for all the
before the Cebu City Regional of the Code, delineate the prestige and opportunity which
Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the lawyer's responsibility to the profession brings lies the
National Labor Relations society: Rule 1.01 engraves the greater responsibility to uphold
Commission (NLRC). Finding overriding prohibition against its integrity and honor. Towards
merit in the complaint, Labor lawyers from engaging in any this purpose, it is quintessential
Arbiter ordered PT&T to pay unlawful, dishonest, immoral that its members continuously
complainant P113,100.00 as and deceitful conduct; Rule and unwaveringly exhibit,
separation pay and P73,608.00 1.03 proscribes lawyers from preserve and protect moral
as backwages. PT&T appealed. encouraging any suit or uprightness in their activities,
proceeding or delaying any both in their legal practice as
NLRC set aside LA Carreon's man's cause for any corrupt well as in their personal lives.
ruling and instead ordered motive or interest; meanwhile, Truth be told, the Bar holds no
PT&T to reinstate complainant Rule 6.02 is particularly directed place for the deceitful, immoral
to his former position and pay to lawyers in government and corrupt.
him backwages, as well as 13th service, enjoining them from
month pay and service using one's public position to:
incentive leave pay, including (1) promote private interests;
moral damages and attorney's (2) advance private interests; or CANON 2
fees. On reconsideration, it (3) allow private interests to – A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
modified the amounts of the interfere with public duties. EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
aforesaid monetary awards but INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
still maintained that Records show that respondent PROFESSION.
complainant was illegally was merely tasked to re-
dismissed. compute the monetary awards
due to the complainant who
04. Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc. Honorable Supreme Court has success. He easily sees the
the power to suppress and difference between a normal by-
punish the Legal Clinic and its product of able service and the
Facts Ruling corporate officers.
Petitioner prays this Court "to Legal Clinic is a corporation and unwholesome result of
order the respondent to cease cannot practice law UP Women Lawyers’ Circle: propaganda. The Supreme Court
and desist from issuing Paramount consideration also enumerated the following as
advertisements pertaining to Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in should be given to the allowed forms of advertisement:
the exercise of the law the practice of law however, protection of the general
profession other than those such practice is not allowed. The public from the danger of
allowed by law. Legal Clinic is composed mainly 1. 1.) Advertisement in a
being exploited by unqualified reputable law list
of paralegals. The services it persons or entities who may
Petitioner: The offered include various legal 2. 2.) Use of ordinary
be engaged in the practice of simple professional
advertisements are problems wherein a client may law and from the dangers
champertous, unethical, avail of legal services from simple card
which may be brought about 3. 3.) Listing in a phone
demeaning of the law documentation to complex by advertising of legal
profession, and destructive of litigation and corporate directory but without
services. designation as to his
the confidence of the undertakings. Most of these
community in the integrity of services are undoubtedly beyond specialization
Issues: (1) Whether or not the
the members of the bar and the domain of paralegals, but services offered by
that, as a member of the legal rather, are exclusive functions of respondent as advertised by it
profession, he is ashamed and lawyers engaged in the practice constitutes practice of law
offended by the said of law. Under Philippine and, (2) Whether the same
advertisements. jurisdiction however, the can properly be the subject of
services being offered by Legal the advertisements herein
Respondent: Admits the fact Clinic which constitute practice complained of.
of publication of said of law cannot be performed by
advertisements at its paralegals. Only a person duly Topics: Practice of Law,
instance, but claims that it is admitted as a member of the bar Advertisement of Legal
not engaged in the practice of and who is in good and regular Practice
law but in the rendering of standing, is entitled to practice
"legal support services" law.
through paralegals with the 05. Villatuya v.Tabalingcos
use of modern computers and Anent the issue on the validity of
electronic machines. the questioned advertisements, Facts Ruling
the Code of Professional In a complaint for disbarment, IBP:
IBP: Its name connotes the Responsibility provides that a complainant Manuel G. (1) The charge should have been
rendering of legal services for lawyer in making known his legal Villatuya charges Atty. Bede S. filed with the proper courts
legal problems, and connotes services shall use only true, Tabalingcos (respondent) with since it was only empowered to
lawyers. The advertisements honest, fair, dignified and unlawful solicitation of cases, determine respondent's
in question are meant to objective information or violation of the Code of administrative liability. On this
induce the performance of statement of facts. The Professional Responsibility for matter, complainant failed to
acts contrary to law, morals, standards of the legal profession nonpayment of fees to prove dishonesty on the part of
public order and public policy. condemn the lawyer’s complainant, and gross respondent.
It suggests that Filipinos can advertisement of his talents. A immorality for marrying two
avoid the legal consequences lawyer cannot, without violating other women while (2) Respondent have violated
of a marriage and secret the ethics of his profession, respondent's first marriage the rule on the solicitation of
marriages. Recommendation: advertise his talents or skills as in was subsisting. client for having advertised his
Restrain respondents from a manner similar to a merchant legal services and unlawfully
undertaking highly unethical advertising his goods. Further, Complainant: February 2002, solicited cases. It recommended
activities. the advertisements of Legal he was employed by that he be reprimanded for the
Clinic seem to promote divorce, respondent as a financial violation. It failed, though, to
PBA: Respondent's acts of secret marriage, bigamous consultant to assist the latter point out exactly the specific
holding out itself to the public marriage, and other on technical and financial provision he violated.
under the trade name "The circumventions of law which matters in the latter's
Legal Clinic, Inc.," and their experts can facilitate. Such numerous petitions for (3) Respondent is guilty of gross
soliciting employment for its is highly reprehensible. corporate rehabilitation 1led immorality for violating Rules
enumerated services fall with different courts. 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
within the realm of a practice The Supreme Court also noted Complainant claimed that they Professional Responsibility and
which thus yields itself to the which forms of advertisement had a verbal agreement Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
regulatory powers of the are allowed. The best advertising whereby he would be entitled Rules of Court. It found that
Supreme Court. The practice to a sum from the fees. complainant was able to prove
possible for a lawyer is a well-
of law is a personal right Respondent engaged in through documentary evidence
limited to persons who have merited reputation for
unlawful solicitation of cases in that respondent committed
qualified themselves under professional capacity and fidelity
violation of Section 27 of the bigamy twice by marrying two
the law. It follows that not to trust, which must be earned as Code of Professional other women while the latter's
only respondent but also all the outcome of character and Responsibility. Complainant 1rst marriage was subsisting.
the persons who are acting for conduct. Good and efficient accused respondent of Due to the gravity of the acts of
respondent are the persons service to a client as well as to committing two counts of respondent, the Commission
engaged in unethical law bigamy for having married two recommended that he be
the community has a way of
practice. other women while his first disbarred, and that his name be
publicizing itself and catching
marriage was subsisting. He stricken off the roll of attorneys.
PLA: Respondent is engaged public attention. That publicity is
submitted Certifications.
in unauthorized practice of a normal by-product of effective SC: IBP recommendations
law and the advertisements service which is right and proper. Respondent: Denied the affirmed.
complained of are not only A good and reputable lawyer charges. Complainant was not
unethical, but also misleading needs no artificial stimulus to an employee of his law firm. (1) Nonpayment of the former's
and patently immoral. The Complainant was share in the fees, if proven to be
generate it and to magnify his
 unprofessional and true is based on an agreement Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice
incompetent in performing his that is violative of Rule 9.02 of Renato C. Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar of the
job as a financial consultant, the Code of Professional Philippines on our Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Rule of
resulting in the latter's Responsibility. A lawyer is Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, the Court
dismissal of many proscribed by the Code to divide Resolved to APPROVE the same.
rehabilitation plans they or agree to divide the fees for This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following
presented in their court cases. legal services rendered with a
publication of the said Rule and its implementing regulations in at
There was no verbal person not licensed to practice
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
agreement between them law. Complainant failed to show
regarding the payment of fees convincing evidence. RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. He (2) Respondent indeed used the
proffered documents showing business entities mentioned in SECTION 1. Title. — This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on
that the salary of complainant the report to solicit clients and Mandatory Legal Aid Service". ITSCED
had been paid. He also to advertise his legal services, SECTION 2. Purpose. — This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of
contended that his firm was purporting to be specialized in lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as
handling the legal aspect of the corporate rehabilitation cases. officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less
cases while the complainant’s Based on the facts of the case, privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases
firm (Jesi) was handling the he violated Rule 2.03 of the involving them. Mandatory free legal service by members of the
financial aspect. Respondent Code, which prohibits lawyers bar and their active support thereof will aid the efficient and
did not speci1cally address the from soliciting cases for the effective administration of justice especially in cases involving
allegations regarding his purpose of profit. indigent and pauper litigants.
alleged bigamous marriages
with two other women. Rule 15.08 of the Code SECTION 3. Scope. — This Rule shall govern the mandatory
mandates that the lawyer is requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services
Issues: mandated to inform the client in all cases (whether civil, criminal or administrative) involving
(1) Whether respondent whether the former is acting as indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is
violated the Code of a lawyer or in another capacity. needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal
Professional Responsibility by This duty is a must in those profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar
nonpayment of fees to occupations related to the of the Philippines.
complainant, practice of law. The reason is SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Rule:
(2) Whether respondent that certain ethical
violated the rule against considerations governing the (a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar
unlawful solicitation, and (3) attorney-client relationship may who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and
Whether respondent is guilty be operative in one and not in quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the
National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation
of gross immoral conduct for the other.
having married thrice. and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and
(3) Respondent's regard for Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian
Topics: Dishonesty, Unlawful marriage contracts as ordinary Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for
Solicitation and agreements indicates either his Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall
Advertisement, and wanton disregard of the sanctity exclude:
Disbarment of marriage or his gross (i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials
ignorance of the law on what not allowed by law to practice;
course of action to take to annul
a marriage under the old Civil (ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
Code provisions. Respondent (iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student
exhibited a deplorable lack of practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and
that degree of morality required lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
of him as a member of the bar. peoples' organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance
He made a mockery of marriage, Group who by the nature of their work already render free
a sacred institution demanding legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants; and
respect and dignity. His acts of
committing bigamy twice (iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii)
constituted grossly immoral including those who are employed in the private sector but
conduct and are grounds for do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law
disbarment under Section 27, and quasi-judicial agencies.
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of (b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under
Court. Rule 141, Section 19 of the Rules of Court and Algura v. The
Local Government Unit of the City of Naga (G.R. No.
Respondent’s charge of 150135, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 81);
dishonesty is dismissed, charge
of illegal advertisement and (c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and
solicitation is reprimanded, him controversies that are criminal, civil and administrative in
disbarred for engaging in nature in whatever stage wherein indigent and pauper
bigamy. litigants need legal representation; TaDAIS
(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or
quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or
February 10, 2009 pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions.
It shall also cover assistance by a practicing lawyer to
indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation and in
[B.M. No. 2012] other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed
counselde oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid
PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR
services and credited as compliance under this Rule;
PRACTICING LAWYERS
(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official
national organization of lawyers in the country;
RESOLUTION
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the (d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a
committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer. The IBP
handling legal aid cases; Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the
IBP's NCLA for recording and documentation. The
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of
submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after
the IBP which is specifically tasked with disciplining
the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the
members of the Bar;
practicing lawyers.
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of
(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed
the Philippines located in the different geographical areas
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and
of the country as defined in Rule 139-A; and
date of issue of their certificate of compliance for the
(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to
practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the disclose the required information would cause the dismissal
case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
an equivalent or similar position. records. cDTSHE

The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in (f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer the category under Section 4 (a) (i) and (ii), shall fill up a
of an accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited mediator who form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that
conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding. year, they are employed with the government or incumbent
elective officials not allowed by law to practice or lawyers
SECTION 5. Requirements. —
who by law are not allowed to appear in court. The form
(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP
of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent National Office together with the payment of an annual
litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said
period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the
hours of free legal aid services each month. However, support of its legal aid program.
where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render
(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by
legal aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month,
the category under Section 4 (a) (iii) shall secure a
the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the
succeeding periods.
concerned NGO or PO to the effect that, during that year,
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or
the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render free legal actively participated in the NGO's or PO's free legal aid
aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid activities. The certification shall be submitted to the IBP
Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases Chapter or IBP National Office.
where he may render free legal aid service. In this
(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by
connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP
the category under Section 4 (a) (iv) shall fill up a form
Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate with the
prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year,
Clerk of Court. cHSTEA
they are neither practicing lawyers nor covered by Section
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the (4) (a) (i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and submitted
requirement within ten (10) days of the last month of each to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the
quarter of the year. payment of an annual contribution of Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing
(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and
lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said
obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to
contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the
the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services
support of its legal aid program.
in a case. The certificate shall contain the following
information:
(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was (i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the
rendered, the party or parties in the said case(s) for whom lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for that
the service was rendered, the docket number of the said year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund for
case(s) and the date(s) the service was rendered. the legal aid program of the IBP.
(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing SECTION 6. NCLA. —
or conducting trial on a particular case in the court or quasi-
(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid
judicial body.
committees of the IBP local chapters for the proper
(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing
mediation, conciliation or any other mode of ADR on a lawyers can represent. CSDAIa
particular case.
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of
(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file the Legal Aid Office with respect to the coordination with
a pleading or for postponement of hearing or conference) Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of
or pleading filed on a particular case shall be considered as certificates submitted by practicing lawyers.
one (1) hour of service.
(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records
The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, in compliance with this Rule.
one (1) copy to be retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1)
(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate
copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy
to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in
to be attached to the lawyer's compliance report. DSEIcT
Section 5 (e) and (g). CEDHTa
(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal
(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the
Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the court's
contributions and penalties that will be paid by lawyers
jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked
pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions
with immediately verifying the contents of the certificate
of this Rule. For this purpose, it shall annually submit an
with the issuing Clerk of Court by comparing the copy of the
accounting to the IBP Board of Governors. The accounting
certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy
shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme
retained by the Clerk of Court.
Court in connection with its request for the release of the
subsidy for its legal aid program.
SECTION 7. Penalties. — SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. — The IBP, through the NCLA, is
hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in
(a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer
determining who are "practicing lawyers", what constitute "legal
who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal
aid cases" and what administrative procedures and financial
aid service each year shall be required by the IBP, through
safeguards which may be necessary and proper in the
the NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the
implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It shall coordinate
minimum prescribed number of hours. If no explanation
with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed
has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation
implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of
unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and
Governors, the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted
recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors that the
to the Supreme Court for final approval.
erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not
in good standing. Upon approval of the NCLA's SECTION 10. Effectivity. — This Rule and its implementing rules
recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall declare shall take effect on July 1, 2009 after they have been published in
the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice two (2) newspapers of general circulation. IESAac
thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP
Published in The Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chapter which submitted the lawyer's compliance report or
on February 14, 2009.
the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is registered, in case he
did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the ||| (Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing
lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos Lawyers, B.M. No. 2012, [February 10, 2009])
(P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to the special fund for
the legal aid program of the IBP.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective CANON 3
for a period of three (3) months from the receipt of the
– A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE
erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of Governors.
ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
During the said period, the lawyer cannot appear in court
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
or any quasi-judicial body as counsel. Provided, however,
that the "not in good standing" status shall subsist even
after the lapse of the three-month period until and unless 06. Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo
the penalty shall have been paid.
(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Facts Ruling
Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall be the For advertising himself in IBP recommendation affirmed.
subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu several leading newspapers as
proprio by the CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the an "Annulment of Marriage The practice of law is not a
erring lawyer due process in accordance with the rules of Specialist," Atty. Rizalino T. business but a profession in
the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found Simbillo was charged for which duty to public service, not
administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the improper advertising and money, is the primary
practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon solicitation of his legal services. consideration. Although
him. TCcDaE Respondent admitted the act solicitation of legal business is
imputed to him, but argued not altogether proscribed, to be
(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form that advertising and proper, it must be compatible
required to be submitted under this Rule or any contents solicitation per se are not with the dignity of the legal
thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification prohibited acts. profession, made in a modest
and dishonesty and shall be subject to disciplinary action by and decorous manner that
the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of criminal In his newspaper would bring no injury to the
charges against the lawyer. advertisement, his not name is lawyer and the bar.
(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof not indicated but placed a
by any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the Legal Aid telephone number. The following elements
Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is distinguish the legal profession
pending or by the Director of a legal clinic or responsible On September 1, 2000, Atty. from a business:
officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground for an Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his 1. A duty of public service, of
administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or capacity as Assistant Court which the emolument is a by-
Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the Administrator and Chief of the product, and in which one may
criminal and administrative charges against the malfeasor. Public Information Office, filed attain the highest eminence
an administrative complaint without making much money;
SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education against Atty. Rizalino T. 2. A relation as an "officer of the
(MCLE). — A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for Simbillo for improper court" to the administration of
the required number of hours in a year for the three year-period advertising and solicitation of justice involving thorough
covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be his legal services, in violation of sincerity, integrity and
credited the following: two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the reliability;
credit units for trial and pretrial skills, two (2) credit units for Code of Professional 3. A relation to clients in the
alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing Responsibility and Rule 138, highest degree of fiduciary;
and oral advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and Section 27 of the Rules of 4. A relation to colleagues at the
procedural laws and jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such Court. bar characterized by candor,
subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under fairness, and unwillingness to
Section 2 (g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE. IBP: Respondent is guilty of resort to current business
A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 methods of advertising and
required number of hours in a year for at least two consecutive of the Code of Professional encroachment on their practice,
years within the three year-period covered by a compliance period Responsibility and Rule 138, or dealing directly with their
under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: one (1) Section 27 of the Rules of clients.
credit unit for legal ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial and pretrial Court, and suspended him
skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute resolution, two (2) from the practice of law for one Here, for advertising himself as
credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units (1) year with the warning that a an annulment of marriage
for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three repetition of similar acts would specialist, Atty. Simbillo
(3) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE be dealt with more severely. undermined not only the
Committee under Section 2 (g), Rule 2 of the Rules on stability but also the sanctity of
MCLE. 1uplaw09 Topics: Advertisement of Legal marriage. Thus, for violation of
Services Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
 and Rule 138, Section 27 of the (b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and
Rules of Court, Atty. Simbillo pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
was suspended from the
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative
practice of law for one year,
dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
with stern warning against
repetition of the same or similar (d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on
offense. substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing
CANON 4 and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
– A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMET OF THE (f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international
LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW law and international conventions equivalent to two (2)
REFORM AND IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such
subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE
CANON 5 Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
– A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, RULE 3
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
Compliance Period
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS
AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND SECTION 1. Initial Compliance Period. — The initial compliance
ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the
AND JURISPRUDENCE. adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for
members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the
program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months
October 2, 2001 and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance
period. TECcHA
SECTION 2. Compliance Groups. — Members of the IBP not exempt
EN BANC from the MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3)
compliance groups, namely:

B.M. No. 850 (a) Compliance group 1. — Members in the National

Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. — Members in Luzon outside NCR
are assigned to Compliance Group 2.
RESOLUTION
(c) Compliance group 3. — Members in Visayas and
Mindanao are assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward
EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE compliance with the MCLE requirement.
PHILIPPINES
SECTION 3. Compliance Period of Members Admitted or
Readmitted After Establishment of the Program. — Members
admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal
program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group
Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the
based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or
Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the
readmission.
Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the
Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall
resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the following Revised begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and
Rules for proper implementation: shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.
RULE 1
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial
Purpose
compliance period after admission or readmission, the
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. — Continuing legal education is member is not required to comply with the program
required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) requirement for the initial compliance.
to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law
and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and (b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial
enhance the standards of the practice of law. compliance period after admission or readmission, the
member shall be required to complete a number of hours
RULE 2 of approved continuing legal education activities equal to
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education the number of months remaining in the compliance period
in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. — Within two (2) months member shall be required to complete a number of hours
from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of
the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of
implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
(MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
RULE 4
SECTION 2. Requirements of Completion of MCLE. — Members of
the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) Computation of Credit Units (CU)
years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education SECTION 1. Guidelines. — CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours: CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyer's
ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units. cHSIAC participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines
for computing credit units and the supporting documents required SECTION 2. Claim for Participatory Credit Units. — Participatory
therefor: credit units may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars,
conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house education
CREDIT SUPPORTING
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion.
UNITS DOCUMENTS
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist,
reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator,
SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE
1 coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS,
DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED (c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review
PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED class.
RULE
S SECTION 3. Claim for Non-Participatory Credit Units. — Non-
participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period
for:
1 CU PER
PARTICIPANT/ATTENDE HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF (a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials
1.1 published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of
E ATTENDANC ATTENDANCE
E an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute
WITH NUMBER OF to the legal education of the author member, which were
HOURS not prepared in the ordinary course of the member's
FULL CU FOR PHOTOCOPY OF practice or employment.
1.2 LECTURER
THE SUBJECT PLAQUE OR (b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
PER
SPONSOR'S RULE 6
RESOURCE SPEAKER COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATION
PERIOD Computation of Credit Hours (CH)
1/2 OF CU
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR CERTIFICATION FROM SECTION 1. Computation of Credit Hours. — Credit hours are
FOR THE
SPONSORING computed based on actual time spent in an education activity in
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER hours to the nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
ORGANIZATION
COMPLIANCE RULE 7
MODERATOR/
PERIOD
Exemptions
COORDINATOR/
SECTION 1. Parties Exempted from the MCLE. — The following
FACILITATOR
members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines,
AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive
2
REVIEW Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of
FULL CU FOR Representatives;
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT PUBLISHED BOOK
THE SUBJECT
PER (c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
LESS THAN 100 PAGES COMPLIANCE Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary,
PERIOD incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and
1/2 OF THE PUBLISHED BOOK incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
2.2 BOOK EDITOR
CU OF WITH PROOF AS Academy program of continuing judicial education;
AUTHORSHIP
EDITOR (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and
CATEGORY
Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
1/2 OF CU DULY
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER
FOR THE CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors
INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL General;
SUBJECT PER
PROGRAM/ REPORT/PAPER
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
COMPLIANCE
CREATIVE PROJECT Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
PERIOD
1/2 OF CU (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT PUBLISHED ARTICLE
FOR THE Commissions;
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the
COMPLIANCE Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the
PERIOD Office of the Ombudsman;
1 CU PER
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ PUBLISHED (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial
ISSUE
NEWSLETTER/JOURNA functions;
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
L (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law
FULL CU FOR CERTIFICATION OF who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/
THE SUBJECT LAW DEAN OR accredited law schools;
PER
BAR REVIEW LECTURE COMPLIANCEBAR REVIEW DIRECTOR (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the
PERIOD Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the
LAW TEACHING/ Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
RULE 5 SECTION 2. Other Parties Exempted from the MCLE. — The
Categories of Credit Units following members of the Bar are likewise exempt:

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit Units. — Credit units are either (a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
participatory or non-participatory. AHCETa (b) Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors. AHCaES
SECTION 3. Good Cause for Exemption from or Modification of time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the
Requirement. — A member may file a verified request setting forth education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished
good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post the MCLE COMMITTEE.
graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from
(b) The provider shall certify that:
compliance with or modification of any of the requirements,
including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with (1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE
a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee. COMMITTEE in the amount of _______ hours of which
SECTION 4. Change of status. — The compliance period shall begin _______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as
on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be appropriate to the content of the activity; aTEACS
exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the (2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved
same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance education activities prescribed by these Rules and such
Group. regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE
COMMITTEE.

SECTION 5. Proof of Exemption. — Applications for exemption from (c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all
or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and participants identifying the time, date, location, subject
supported by documents. matter and length of the activity.

RULE 8 (d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all

approved continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE
Standards for Approval of Education Activities COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE Program. — Subject to designees of the Committee and IBP Staff Board for
the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials,
approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is
the nature of the activity, the time devoted to each topic
an accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets the
and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make
criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically
available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE
mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
SECTION 2. Standards for All Education Activities. — All continuing
legal education activities must meet the following standards: (f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education
Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE
practical content. COMMITTEE.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of (g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized
learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession, activity under this program or issues a spurious certificate
including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate
medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to sanctions.
practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral
advocacy. SECTION 4. Renewal of Provider Accreditation. —
The accreditation of a provider may be renewed every two (2)
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of
adequate professional experience. the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, education activities for the preceding period.
substantive written materials must be distributed to all SECTION 5. Revocation of Provider Accreditation. —
participants. Such materials must be distributed at or The accreditation of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be
before the time the activity is offered. revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after notice
and hearing and for good cause.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a
time and location so as to be free from interruption like RULE 10
telephone calls and other distractions. Fee for Approval of Activity and Accreditation of Provider
RULE 9 SECTION 1. Payment of Fees. — Application for approval of an
Accreditation of Providers education activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment
of the appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
SECTION 1. Accreditation of Providers. — Accreditation of
providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee. CSIDEc RULE 11
SECTION 2. Requirements for Accreditation of Providers. — Any General Compliance Procedures
person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two SECTION 1. Compliance Card. — Each member shall secure from
(2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his
providers of continuing legal education activities, including in- compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under
house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that
Application for accreditation shall: he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than
Committee; the day after the end of the member's compliance period. ScaAET

(b) Contain all information requested in the form; SECTION 2. Member Record Keeping Requirement. — Each
member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee. exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record
SECTION 3. Requirements of All Providers. — All required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant
approved accredited providers shall agree to the following: to Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of attendance
at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3
activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least of Rule 5.
four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall
include the member on the official record of attendance RULE 12
only if the member's signature was obtained at the time of Non-Compliance Procedures
attendance at the activity. The official record of
SECTION 1. What Constitutes Non-Compliance. — The following
attendance shall contain the member's name
shall constitute non-compliance:
and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within RULE 15
the compliance period;
Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or SECTION 1. Composition. — The MCLE Committee shall be
exemption; composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively
(including evidence of exempt status) within the nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center
prescribed period; designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools
and/or law professors.
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days
from receipt of non-compliance notice; The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term
prescribed period; of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be
determined by the Court.
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance SECTION 2. Duty of Committee. — The MCLE Committee shall
with the MCLE requirements. administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary
subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in
SECTION 2. Non-compliance Notice and 60-day Period to Attain consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule
Compliance. — Members failing to comply will receive a Non- of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.
Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given
SECTION 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. — Subject to approval by
sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response
the Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as
clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the
may be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing,
requirements. Such notice shall contain the following language
reporting, approval and other necessary functions. AacSTE
near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
SECTION 4. Submission of Annual Budget. — The MCLE Committee
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF
shall submit to the Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT
[for a subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE
DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE
Program.
LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September
ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
MCLE COMMITTEE. circulation in the Philippines.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non- Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on
Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the 02 October 2001.
adequate number of credit units for compliance.
||| (Adopting the Revised Rules on the Continuing Legal Education for
Credit unitsearned during this period may only be counted
Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, B.M. No. 850,
toward compliance with the prior compliance period [October 2, 2001])
requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are
earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period
requirement. DCAEcS
June 3, 2008
RULE 13
Consequences of Non-Compliance
SECTION 1. Non-compliance Fee. — A member who, for whatever [B.M. No. 1922]
reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period
Sirs/Mesdames:
shall pay a non-compliance fee.
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the
SECTION 2. Listing as Delinquent Member. — A member who fails
Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008
to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for
compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of "Bar Matter No. 1922. — Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory
the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All
investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel's MCLE Certificate of
by the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. — The Court Resolved to
the MCLE Committee. NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education
SECTION 3. Accrual of Membership Fee. — Membership fees shall
and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of
continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the
the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
RULE 14
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE
Reinstatement practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed
SECTION 1. Process. — The involuntary listing as a delinquent before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of
member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non- Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding
compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information
meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
period the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not pleadings from the records.
be counted toward meeting the current compliance period The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication
requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non- in a newspaper of general circulation". Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr.,
compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior Nachura, JJ., on official leave. (adv216a)
compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting
the current compliance period requirement.
SECTION 2. Termination of Delinquent Listing is an Administrative Very truly yours,
Process. — The termination of listing as a delinquent member is
administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE
Committee.
 (SGD.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA to this unfortunate result, she is
Clerk of Court Topic: MCLE bound by such.
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Petition dismissed.
Published in The Manila Bulletin on June 26, 2008.
||| (Requirement to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the May 26, 2014
Counsel's MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption, B.M. No.
1922, [June 3, 2008])
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-14
TO :The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals,
07. Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Lim Regional Trial Courts, Shari'a District Courts, Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Facts Ruling Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts,
Subject of the present The Court sees no reversible the Office of the State Prosecutor, Public Attorney's Office
controversy is a parcel of land error committed by the CA in and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
with an approximate area of 4.4 dismissing Consolacion's
hectares and located at Bignay, petition before it on the ground
Valenzuela City. The property is of petitioner's unexplained
registered in the names of failure to comply with basic
SUBJECT:Bar Matter No. 1922 (Re: Recommendation of the
George and Marilyn Lim procedural requirements
(Spouses Lim). attendant to the filing of a Mandatory Continuing Legal Education [MCLE] Board to
petition for review under Rule Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel's
On September 8, 2004, Maria 43 of the Rules of Court. MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption)
Consolacion Rivera-Pascual
(Consolacion) filed before the Notably, Consolacion and her
Office of the Regional Agrarian counsel remained stubborn
In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14, 2014 in
Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) despite the opportunity
the above-cited administrative matter, the Court RESOLVED, upon
for Region IV-A a petition to be afforded to them by the CA to
the recommendation of the MCLE Governing Board, to:
recognized as a tenant of a rectify their lapses. While there
property located at Bignay, was compliance, this took (a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the
Valenzuela City against Danilo place, however, after the CA phrase "Failure to disclose the required information would
Deato (Deato). had ordered the dismissal of cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
Consolacion's petition and pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to
During the pendency of the without reasonable cause disclose the required information would subject the counsel
petition, Deato sold the proffered to justify its to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action"; and
property to Spouses Lim. The belatedness. Absent valid and
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of
sale was registered on compelling reasons, the
current MCLE compliance/exemption number in the
December 21, 2004 in favor of requested leniency and
pleadings:
Spouses Lim. liberality in the observance of
procedural rules appears to be (i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the
RARAD: Declared petitioner is an afterthought, hence, cannot first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense and
the tenant of the subject be granted. The CA saw no P4,000.00 for the third offense;
landholding by succession from compelling need meriting the
her deceased father, and that relaxation of the rules. Neither (ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a
she has a right to exercise the does this Court see any. delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule
right of redemption of the 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and
subject parcel of agricultural The Court is aware of the regulations; and aSTcCE
land pursuant to Section 12 of exceptional cases where (iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the
RA 3844 as amended. technicalities were liberally case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services
construed. However, in these of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the
She also filed a petition to order cases, outright dismissal is return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.
the spouses to accept rendered unjust by the
P10,000,000 as tender. presence of a satisfactory and This revokes OCA Circular No. 66-2008 dated July 22, 2008, and any
persuasive explanation. The prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator on this
DARAB: Reversed RARAD’s parties therein who prayed for matter which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby superseded.
decision. liberal interpretation were able For your information, guidance and strict compliance.
to hurdle that heavy burden of
CA: Petitioner’s counsel was proving that they deserve an
required to present his exceptional treatment. It was JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Mandatory Continuing Legal never the Court's intent "to
Court Administrator
Education (MCLE) Certificate of forge a bastion for erring
Compliance or Exemption and litigants to violate the rules ||| (Bar Matter No. 1922, OCA Circular No. 079-14, [May 26, 2014])
an amended Verification and with impunity."
Certification Against
NonForum-Shopping pursuant This Court will not condone a
to B.M. No. 1922, but failed to cavalier attitude towards CANON 6
do so. Petition dismissed. procedural rules. It is the duty – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
of every member of the bar to SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Petitioner: Alleged that comply with these rules. They
procedural rules or are not at liberty to seek
technicalities are designed to exceptions should they fail to
facilitate the attainment of observe these rules and
justice and their rigid rationalize their omission by
application should be avoided if harking on liberal construction.
this would frustrate rather than While it is the negligence of
promote substantial justice. Consolacion's counsel that led
08. PCGG v. Sandiganbayan Sol Gen and counsel to Central banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of
Bank actively intervened in the the Code of Professional
liquidation of GENBANK which Responsibility cannot apply to
Facts Ruling was subsequently acquired by respondent Mendoza because
In 1976 the General Bank and The case at bar does not respondents Tan et. al., which his alleged intervention while
Trust Company (GENBANK) involve the “adverse interest” subsequently became Allied SolGen is an intervention on a
encountered financial aspect of Rule 6.03. Banking Corporation. matter different from the
difficulties. GENBANK had matter involved in the Civil case
extended considerable financial Respondent Mendoza, it is The motions to disqualify of sequestration in the metes
support to Filcapital conceded, has no adverse invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code and bounds of the
Development Corporation interest problem when he of Professional Responsibility “intervention”.
causing it to incur daily acted as SolGen and later as which prohibits former
overdrawings on its current counsel of respondents et.al. government lawyers from The applicable meaning as the
account with Central Bank. before the Sandiganbayan. accepting “engagement” or term is used in the Code of
However there is still the issue employment in connection with Professional Ethics is that it is
Despite the mega loans, of whether there exists a any matter in which he had an act of a person who has the
GENBANK failed to recover “congruent-interest conflict” intervened while in the said power to influence the subject
from its financial woes. The sufficient to disqualify service. The Sandiganbayan proceedings. The evil sought to
Central Bank issued a resolution respondent Mendoza from issued a resolution denying be remedied by the Code do
declaring GENBANK insolvent representing respondents. PCGG’s motion to disqualify not exist where the
and unable to resume business respondent Mendoza. It failed government lawyer does not
with safety to its depositors, The key is unlocking the to prove the existence of an act which can be considered as
creditors and the general meaning of “matter” and the inconsistency between innocuous such as “ drafting,
public, and ordering its metes and bounds of respondent Mendoza’s former enforcing, or interpreting
liquidation. “intervention” that he made on function as SolGen and his government or agency
the matter. Beyond doubt that present employment as counsel procedures, regulations or laws
A public bidding of GENBANK’s the “matter” or the act of of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs or briefing abstract principles
assets was held where Lucio respondent Mendoza as recourse to this court assailing of law.”
Tan group submitted the SolGen involved in the case at the Resolutions of the
winning bid. Solicitor General bar is “advising the Central Sandiganbayan. The court rules that the
Estelito Mendoza filed a Bank, on how to proceed with intervention of Mendoza is not
petition with the CFI praying for the said bank’s liquidation and Topic: Former Gov’t Lawyers significant and substantial. He
the assistance and supervision even filing the petition for its Prohibited from Accepting merely petitions that the court
of the court in GENBANK’s liquidation in CFI of Manila. Engagement/ Employment w/ a gives assistance in the
liquidation as mandated by RA Matter in w/c He Intervened in liquidation of GENBANK. The
265. The Court held that the advice Said Service role of court is not strictly as a
given by respondent Mendoza court of justice but as an agent
After EDSA Revolution I Pres on the procedure to liquidate to assist the Central Bank in
Aquino established the PCGG to GENBANK is not the “matter” determining the claims of
recover the alleged ill-gotten contemplated by Rule 6.03 of creditors. In such a proceeding
wealth of former Pres Marcos, the Code of Professional the role of the SolGen is not
his family and cronies. Pursuant Responsibility. ABA Formal that of the usual court litigator
to this mandate, the PCGG filed Opinion No. 342 is clear in protecting the interest of
with the Sandiganbayan a stressing that “drafting, government.
complaint for reversion, enforcing or interpreting
reconveyance, restitution government or agency Petition denied.
against respondents Lucio Tan, procedures, regulations and Dissenting Opinion – Justice Callejo:
at.al. laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law are acts which Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of
PCGG issued several writs of do not fall within the scope of Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, having once held public office or
sequestration on properties the term “matter” and cannot having been in the public employ, should not after his retirement
allegedly acquired by them by disqualify. Respondent accept employment in connection with any matter which he has
taking advantage of their close Mendoza had nothing to do investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
relationship and influence with with the decision of the Central
former Pres. Marcos. The Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public
abovementioned respondents also did not participate in the position as a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests
Tan, et. al are represented as sale of GENBANK to Allied extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in which he
their counsel, former Solicitor Bank. intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction
General Mendoza. specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A
The legality of the liquidation of plain reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who
PCGG filed motions to disqualify GENBANK is not an issue in the once served in the government and 2. relates to his accepting
respondent Mendoza as sequestration cases. Indeed, “engagement or employment” in connection with any matter in
counsel for respondents Tan et. the jurisdiction of the PCGG which he had intervened while in the service.
al. with Sandiganbayan. It was does not include the
alleged that Mendoza as then dissolution and liquidation of
 CANON 7
In Rel Meling
FACTS:
Atty. Froilan R. Melendres filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a petition to disqualify Haron Meling from
taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar.
In the petition, Melendrez alleged that Meling did not disclose in his petition to take the 2002 Bar Examination that he
has 3 pending criminal cases before the MTCC, Cotabato City and that he has been using the title “Attorney” in his
communications despite the fact that he is not a member of the bar.
(Applicable Rule 7.01 but this was just given by the OCB from their Findings and Recommendation…so please see their
resolution in the pdf file.)

ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealment constitutes dishonesty.

HELD:
Yes. Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari'a Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
character. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant
to aver that he or she " has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law , rule or regulation before a
fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any
offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against him/her” which was not
followed by Meling.
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of good
moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court
in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of
such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or
insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant. Meling's concealment speaks of his lack of
the requisite good moral character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon him as a member of
the Shari'a Bar.
SO, he was barred from taking an oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys and was suspended in the Shari’a Court. But
the issue about the concealment was rendered moot and academic since the defendant was not able to pass the 2003
Bar Examination.

Rule 139-A
RULE 139-A

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Section 1. Organization. — There is hereby organized an official national body to be known as the "Integrated Bar of the Philippines," composed
of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

Section 2. Purposes. — The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

Section 3. Regions. — The Philippines is hereby divided into nine Regions of the Integrated Bar, to wit:

(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-
Apayao, La Union, Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.

(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Zambales;

(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila and Quezon City;

(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro,
Quezon, and Rizal;

(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon;

(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and Southern Leyte;
 (g) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Palawan,
Romblon, and Siquijor.

(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan Del Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del Norte, Davao
del Sur, Davao Oriental, Misamis Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and

(i) Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga, and the provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del
Sur, Misamis Occidental, South Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur.

In the event of the creation of any new province, the Board of Governors shall, with the approval of the Supreme Court, determine the Region
to which the said province shall belong.

Section 4. Chapters. — A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province. Except as hereinbelow provided, every city shall be
considered part of the province within which it is geographically situated.

A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or areas;

(a) The sub-province of Aurora;

(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila;

(c) Quezon City;

(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;

(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;

(f) Cebu City; and

(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City.

Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the province,
city, political subdivision or area where his office, or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of
more than one Chapter.

Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by uniform rules to be prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by
the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 19 of this Rule notwithstanding.

Chapters belonging to the same Region may hold regional conventions on matters and problems of common concern.

Section 5. House of Delegates. — The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates of not more than one hundred twenty members who shall
be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have
at least one Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974, and every four years thereafter, the Board of Governors shall make an apportionment
of Delegates.

The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on the date of the opening of the annual convention of the House and shall end on the day
immediately preceding the date of the opening of the next succeeding annual convention. No person may be a Delegate for more than two
terms.

The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board of Governors at any time during the month of April of each year for the
election of Governor, the reading and discussion of reports including the annual report of the Board of Governors, the transaction of such other
business as may be referred to it by the Board, and the consideration of such additional matters as may be requested in writing by at least
twenty Delegates. Special conventions of the House may be called by the Board of Governors to consider only such matters as the Board shall
indicate. A majority of the Delegates who have registered for a convention, whether annual or special, shall constitute a quorum to do business.

Section 6. Board of Governors. — The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected by the House
of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list of
nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The President
and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso
facto become members of the Board.

The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors shall have been duly
elected and qualified. No person may be a Governor for more than two terms.

The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date and such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of all the
members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special meetings may be called by the President or by five members of the
Board.

Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt By-Laws and promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for all
members of the Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and the Canons may be amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon the recommendation
of the Board of Governors.
 The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the Integrated Bar as
well as the provisions of this Rule.

Section 7. Officers. — The Integrated Bar shall have a President and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the Governors
immediately after the latter's election, either from among themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five
Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President for the Region which he represents.

The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors
shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice President shall automatically become the President for the next succeeding full term. The
Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions in such order or rotation as the Board of Governors shall prescribe. No
person shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar for more than one term.

The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers and employees as may be required by the Board of Governors, to
be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it may fix. Said
officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar.

Section 8. Vacancies. — In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice President; and
in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President during the
remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the event of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of both the President and the
Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office until the next succeeding election or during the
period of disability.

The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of Governors, and all other positions of Officers of the Integrated Bar shall be as
provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an office or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein shall serve
only for the unexpired term.

Section 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with
the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as a
Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership; re-instatement. — A member may terminate his membership by filing a written notice to that
effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith he
shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken by the Court from the Roll of Attorneys. Reinstatement may be made by the Court in
accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court.

Section 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of Governors shall provide in the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement and
maintenance of discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the suspension or disbarment of a member or
the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.

Section 13. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly
prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or
any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election of appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any
Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective
public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.

Section 14. Positions honorary. — Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court, no Delegate or Governor and no
national or local Officer or committee member shall receive any compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated Bar
for any service rendered therein or be entitled to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the discharge of his functions.

Section 15. Fiscal matters. — The Board of Governors shall administer the funds of the Integrated Bar and shall have the power to make
appropriations and disbursements therefrom. It shall cause proper Books of Accounts to be kept and Financial Statements to be rendered and
shall see to it that the proper audit is made of all accounts of the Integrated Bar and all the Chapters thereof.

Section 16. Journal. — The Board of Governors shall cause to be published a quarterly Journal of the Integrated Bar, free copies of which shall
be distributed to every member of the Integrated Bar.

Section 17. Voluntary Bar associations. — All voluntary Bar associations now existing or which may hereafter be formed may co-exist with the
Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-purposes therewith.

Section 18. Amendments. — This Rule may be amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon the recommendation of the Board of
Governors or any Chapter of the Integrated Bar.

Section 19. Organizational period. — The Commission on Bar Integration shall organize the local Chapters and toward this end shall secure the
assistance of the Department of Justice and of all Judges throughout the Philippines. All Chapter organizational meetings shall be held on
Saturday, February 17, 1973. In every case, the Commission shall cause proper notice of the date, time and place of the meeting called to
organize a Chapter shall constitute a quorum for the purpose, including the election of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer,
and five Directors.
 The Commission shall initially fix the number of Delegates and apportion the same among all the Chapters as nearly as may be in proportion to
the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. The President of each Chapter shall concurrently be
its Delegate to the House of Delegates. The Vice President shall be his alternate, except where the Chapter is entitled to have more than one
Delegate, in which case the Vice President shall also be a Delegate.

The Board of Directors of the Chapter shall in proper cases elect additional as well as alternate Delegates.

The House of Delegates shall convene in the City of Manila on Saturday, March 17, 1973 for the Purpose of electing a Board of Governors. The
Governors shall immediately assume office and forthwith meet to elect the Officers of the Integrated Bar. The Officers so chosen shall
immediately assume their respective positions.

Section 20. Effectivity. — This Rule shall take effect on January 16, 1973.

In Re: Edillon
TAGS: #membershipfees
FACTS:
Atty. Marcial A. Edillon was disbarred on August 3, 1978 for his refusal to pay membership fees due the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. Since then, he has sought reinstatement, invoking his state of health, his advanced age and the
welfare of former clients who still rely on him for counsel.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Edillon should be reinstated.

HELD:
Yes. In Re: Edillon
FACTS: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon was disbarred on August 3, 1978 for his refusal to pay membership fees due the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Since then, he has sought reinstatement, invoking his state of health, his advanced
age and the welfare of former clients who still rely on him for counsel.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Edillon should be reinstated.
HELD: Yes. Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition. Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege.
Considered in addition was the 2 years Atty. E. was barred from practice, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm that the
power to discipline, especially if amounting to disbarment, should be exercised on the preservative and not on
the vindictive principle. Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege. Considered in addition was the 2 years Atty. E.
was barred from practice, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm that the power to discipline, especially if amounting
to disbarment, should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle

Santos V Llamas
FACTS:
Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a member of the bar, sent a letter-complaint dated February 8, 1997 to this Court. He
alleged that Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for number of years had not indicated the PROPER professional tax receipt (PTR)
and IBP – Official Receipt Number, date and place of issuance in his pleadings. Atty. Llamas claimed that since 1992,
he publicly made it clear in his ITR that he had only limited practice of law and his principal occupation is farming. And
being a senior citizen since 1992, he is legally exempt under Section 4 of RA 7432 in the payment of taxes. Thus he
honestly believed that such exemption includes his payment with IBP. Nonetheless, despite such belief, he was ready
to tender such payment.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Llamas violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he misrepresented to the public and courts
that he had paid IBP dues and the data of its payment.

HELD:
Yes. Atty Llamas is guilty of violating CPR which provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.1 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, these acts according to the Court merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent’s
advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of law, the penalty of
one year from the practice of law or until he has paid the IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate, was imposed
upon Atty. Llamas.

CANON 8
Linsangan V Tolentino
FACTS:
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty.
Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an
affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangan’s allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling card which appears as follows:
FRONT

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

BACK

SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.

In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.

2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.

RULING:
1. Yes.
Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another
lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangan’s clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
another’s legal practice.

2. Yes.
Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty.
Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear
that Labiano was connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was benefited.
Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that Atty. Tolentino could
produce a more favorable result.

Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance legal actions for the clients.
The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may
not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire
devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case,
the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either
of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a
settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of
undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“, was clearly used to entice clients (who already
had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.

However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the
printing of said calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate, for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino
committed, he was suspended by the Supreme Court for one year.

CANON 9
Noe-Lacsamana V Bustamante
FACTS: A case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Atty. Busmente appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana
alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente’s
collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente
alleged that Dela Rosa’s employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to continue misrepresenting
herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmente’s former secretary. Busmente alleged that
he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by Noe-
Lacsamana was forged.

ISSUE: WON Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that warrants
his suspension from the practice of law.

RULING: Yes.

Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public
interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified
in education and character.

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Yolando F. Busmente from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS.

CANON 10
Hueysuwan v Florido
FACTS:
Petitioner is the wife of Respondent

Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went to complainant's residence in Tanjay City, Negros
Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed complainant
a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for
temporary child custody.

Complainant then verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18, 2002 5
from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution had been issued.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Florido violated Canon 11, do no falsehood

RULING: Yes.

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v CA

FACTS:
Judgment was rendered against the petitioner ordering it to reconvey the cemetery to the rightful owners, private
respondent sps. Sevilla. Despite the final decision of the SC, petitioner was able to prevent the execution forfiling
petitions for certiorari arguing that the judgment cannot be executed against it because it was not a party to Civil Case
No. C-9297; that the decision of the trial court in said case never mandated Central Dyeing to deliver possession of the
property to the private respondents; that certain facts and circumstances which occurred after the finality of the
judgment will render the execution highly unjust, illegal and inequitable; that the issuance of the assailed writ of
execution violates the lot buyers' freedom of religion and worship; and that private respondents' title is being
questioned in another case to the cause that the case to be pending for 17 years, and thus render the judgment
ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the CA despite the
fact that it would never prosper as the trial court’s decision had long become final before the said petitions were filed.

ISSUE:

RULING:
Petition denied. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and zeal in the defenseof their
client’s right, they are also officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this
should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the
cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deservethe attention of the
courts.

The mere continuation of petitioners’ dilatory tactics to that the respondents will not benefit from the final judgment.
The fear of the petitioner regarding the disturbance of the grave lots was more imagined than true becausein the writ
of execution, the presiding judge imposed that the enforcement of the writ of possession and break open order
should be applied only to the gate of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park at the eastern side nearest to the parcel of land
in question where the factory of the defendant(Central Dyeing) is located, in order to avoid disturbing the peace of
the resting souls over the graves the parcels of land within the said memorial park.

It has been known that the petition of the private respondents has been moot and academic and that they had took
possession of the lot. To the end that:
This case delayed the execution of a final judgment for seventeen (17) years to theprejudice of the private
respondents. In the meantime that petitioner has thwartedexecution, interment on the disputed lot has
long been going on, so that by the time thiscase is finally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled
with tombstones,leaving nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is amockery of
justice.

CANON 11
In Re Almacen
FACTS:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a
Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place
of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his
appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an
appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.

This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed before the
Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue
practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore
without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why
and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated “that justice as
administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually
surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he chose
not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be
taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is
“the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept
every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively
carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.” It
should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of
sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the
law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is
insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of
courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the
independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal
condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.

In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for
reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and
will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen
was suspended indefinitely.

Wicker v Arcangel
FACTS: Wicker’s counsel, Atty. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition of the respondent Judge Arcangel from the
case. Respondent Judge found the allegations by complainants on the motion offensive, and in an order, held them
guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Rayos violated Canon 11

RULING: Yes. Atty. Rayos failed to establish the respect due to judicial officers and to the court

Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much responsibility for the
contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client. Atty. Rayos' duty to the courts is not secondary to
that of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to "observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others" and "not [to] attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have materiality to the case." After the respondent judge had favorably responded to
petitioners' "profuse apologies" and indicated that he would let them off with a fine, without any jail sentence,
petitioners served on respondent judge a copy of their instant petition which prayed in part that "Respondent Judge
Paul T. Arcangel be REVERTED to his former station. He simply cannot do in the RTC of Makati where more complex
cases are heared (sic) unlike in Davao City." If nothing else, this personal attack on the judge only serves to confirm
the "contumacious attitude, a flouting or arrogant belligerence" first evident in petitioners' motion for inhibition
belying their protestations of good faith.

RE: Letter of UP Law Faculty

FACTS:
Sanction awaits a subordinate who misbehaves.

The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern
that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics
are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to
discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have
exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.

Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (the Vinuya
decision), the case involving the Filipino comfort women during the Japanese occupation, the counsel for the
petitioners therein filed, first, a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental responsibility of states in
protecting its citizens’ human rights specifically pertaining to jus cogens norms and, second, a supplement thereto
asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different sources and that the true intents of the
plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente, Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice del Castillo), to suit the
arguments laid down in said decision.

Vis-a-vis the Court’s formation of an ethics committee tasked to investigate the veracity of the alleged
plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme Court,
noting the misreading and/or misrepresentation of their articles. Hence, in their articles, they argue that the
crimes of rape, torture and sexual slavery can be classified as crimes against humanity, thus attaining the jus cogens
status; consequently, it shall be obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens.
However, the Vinuya decision cited them to support the contrary stand.

In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement entitled
“Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” (Restoring Integrity Statement), which
statement alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established fact, but as
a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the College’s bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme
Court. The manner in presenting the arguments and the language used therein, the Court believed, were
inappropriate considering its signatories are lawyers. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution
directing respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conversely, compliance to such resolution was unsatisfactory, except for
one respondent.

ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution denies respondents their freedom of expression
2.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution violates respondents’ academic freedom as law professors

RULING:
Petition DENIED.

The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression

A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the fact that respondents had
criticized a decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members of plagiarism that motivated the
said Resolution. It was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which respondents, who
are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said
pending case for the “proper disposition” and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said Resolution. The
Show Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the statements that the Court considered excessive and
uncalled for under the circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this Court of
the UP Law faculty’s Restoring Integrity Statement.

The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of expression in the Bill of Rights
of the Constitution, must be exercised responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding
obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. Thus, proscribed are the
use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial
administration, or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of people in the integrity of the members of the
Court. In other words, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does
not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

In a long line of cases, the Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be
balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due
influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence
has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts
and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common
decency.

The Show Cause Resolution does not violate respondents’ academic freedom as law professors

There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can
teach and the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom
for this Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct and speech,
coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending case, without observing proper procedure, even
if purportedly done in their capacity as teachers.

Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The constitutional right to
freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due
respect to the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. The Court
believes that the reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater
force to the academic freedom of law professors.

The Court reiterates that lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of
law. Unlike professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound
by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be
measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the
fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers.

CANON 12
Nunez v Atty Ricafort
FACTS:
Sometime in October 1982 petitioner authorized respondent attorney to sell her two parcels of land located in
Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price as commission. Respondent
succeeded in selling the lots, but despite complainant’s repeated demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds
of the sale. This forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for a sum of money before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Respondent was declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner. Respondent appealed said
decision to the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fee within the required
period.
A writ of execution was issued, it appeared however that only a partial amount has been paid by the lawyer. Four
postdated checks were subsequently issued to cover the balance. Said checks however, upon presentment were
dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was closed. Demands to make good the checks were
to no avail so a case for violation of BP 22 was filed by petitioner.
The lawyer denied the allegations and filed several motions for extension of time to file comment. Complainant filed a
motion to cite lawyer for contempt for his alleged delaying tactics unbecoming of a lawyer and a law dean.

ISSUE:
What is the liability of the lawyer?

RULING:
Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct”.
Respondent had no intention to “honor” the money judgment against him in as can be gleaned from his (1) issuance
of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account against which said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to
make good the amounts of the checks.

Santiago v Atty Rafanan

FACTS:
Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, lodged a disbarment
complaint against respondent Atty. Edison Rafanan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging, inter alia,
that Atty. Rafanan violated Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when the
latter executed an affidavit in favour of his client and offered the same as evidence in a case where he is actively
representing his client. The complaint also alleged that after the hearing of the case, respondent accompanied by
several persons waited for Complainant and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter
uttered insulting words and veiled threats.
In his answer, respondent denied having disarmed the complainant and uttered insulting words nor veiled
threats against the latter. He however admitted that he executed an affidavit in favour of his client and offered the
same as evidence in a case where he is actively representing his client but interposed the defense that lawyers could
testify on behalf of their clients "on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of
justice." Complainant charged respondent’s clients with attempted murder. Respondent averred that since they were
in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice.”
The IBP, while finding that administrative offense was committed by respondent for violating the notarial law,
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for alleged violation of Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the present action was commenced.

ISSUE:
May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party which he is actively representing in a
case without violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
YES. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases
pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship. The reason behind such rule is
the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as
advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans --
those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a
disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the
lawyers who testify for their clients.
Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same time counsels for a
cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should
they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case.
Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his
clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for the following reasons:
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the
benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which the latter’s life and liberty are at stake. Having undertaken
the defense of the accused, respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients
from a wrong conviction. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients,
since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and
could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not
dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents.
Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which lawyers give their testimonies during
the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely
inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of
securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from open and
public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the
State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be
followed by the trial proper.
Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to refrain from accepting employment in
any matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective client.
Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony may become essential to serve the "ends of justice," the canons
of the profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these cases.
 CANON 13
Atty Lantoria v Atty Bunyi
Facts: Cesar Lantoria sought disciplinary action against Bunyi, counsel for Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas in certain civil
cases allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge (Vicente Galicia of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur) and
bribery. In cases for ejectment of squatters in Mascarinas’ land, Bunyi allegedly was the one who prepared the
decisions and judge simply signed them

Issue: WON Bunyi is guilty of Ethical Conduct

Ruling: Yes
Letters show that he indeed prepared draft decisions for the judge to sign. (does not matter if it was clearly shown
that the judge consented to such act or even asked for it).

Bunyi violated canon 13:

CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating
familiarity with judges.

Estrada v Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the respondent justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.

“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political
office or participate in other partisan political activities.”

-Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by President
Arroyo. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent
mockery of justice and due process.

-According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality against his client.

-Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted
out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as
insignificant even before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in open court that
to grant Estrada’s motion would result in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of the
Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their disqualification.

-The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January
20, 2001 in:

‘a) going to EDSA 2;

‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as President on the ground of ‘permanent
disability’ even without proof of compliance with the corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g.,
written declaration by either the President or majority of his cabinet; and

‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground of permanent disability.

-In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he
has demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several advisory opinions on matters pending before the
Sandiganbayan.
-Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the foregoing orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in
substance and for utter lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable requirement
to warrant a recourse to the extraordinary relief of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

-In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from
further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.

-Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, Attorney Paguia appears to persist on end. In fact, on the 7th
September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -

“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada
vs. Arroyo unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed. There was no fair play since it appears that
when President Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had already committed to the other party
- GMA - with a judgment already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a
formal hearing. After the justices had authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected to voluntarily
admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?”

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

-Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court
would be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if
committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.) However, Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case
within the judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media.

“Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar from making such public statements on
any pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of
public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the administration of justice.”

-It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success
or the defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of candidacy to a public office in an election. The
taking of an oath of office by any incoming President of the Republic before the Chief Justice of the Philippines is a traditional official
function of the Highest Magistrate. The assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such an event could be no different from
their appearance in such other official functions as attending the Annual State of the Nation Address by the President of
the Philippines before the Legislative Department.

-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s
faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.

-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives
and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking
to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.

-The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.

-WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for
conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
 Canon 14
Santiago v Fojas
Overview: In the Court of Appeals Case No. CA-G.N. CV No. 38153, Atty Fojas is the attorney-in-record of Santiago.
Atty. Fojas failed to act accordingly, or seriously neglected to answer the civil complaint against Santiago which as a
consequence Santiago lost the said case by default.
FACTS:
An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they have illegally removed from the union (FEUFA)
membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. The lower court resolved in favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to
pay, jointly and severally, Mr. Salvador. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in
their petition at the Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their
counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil complaint on an expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured them that everything was
in order and he had already answered the complaint. However, the appellants soon discovered that he never
answered it after all because, according to him, he was a very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his “mistake” in failing
to file an answer for the expulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration.
However, such motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his negligence with the reason that the
case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this Court,
but his services as counsel for the complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by
complainant. Complainants then filed for a disbarment case.
ISSUE:
The core issue that presents itself is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant
disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 for which reason the
latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence,
which was received ex-parte.

RULING:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become
his client. He has the right to decline employment, 1 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 2 He must serve the client with competence and diligence, 3
and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. 4 Elsewise stated, he owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion
of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law,
legally applied. 5 This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that
is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. 6 If much is
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties
not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in
the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill,
and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the sad fate of the
complainants. He is liable for inexcusable negligence.

WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in
the performance of his duty to his clients. cdlex

Canon 15
Northwestern University vs. Arquillo
FACTS:
Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
allegedly reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting interest by acting as counsel for both
complainant and respondent in the very same consolidated case filed to the National Labor Relations Commission.
Respondent claims that there is no conflict-of-interests as all parties are said to be on the same side.
For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to participate in the
proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes. The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Therefore, a lawyer may not represent
conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved, after disclosure of the facts. The Court did not
agree with Arquillo’s justification of his acts for he should have known that in representing opposing parties, there
would be an obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that both parties are on the same side.
Atty. Macario Arquillo was found guilty of misconduct and was hereby suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year.

Artezuela v Maderazo
FACTS:
Facts: Echavia crashed the car he is driving which is owned by Kiyami, but was registered in the name of Villapez. The
car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela. The destruction of the carinderia caused the cessation its
operation, resulting to her financial dislocation. Artezuela incurred debts from her relatives and due to financial
constraints, stopped sending her two children to college. Artezuela hired Maderazo in filing a damage suit against
Echavia, Villapez and Kiyami. For his services, Artezuela paid Maderazo 10,000 as attorneys fees and 2,000 as filing
fee. However, the case was dismissed, allegedly upon the instance of the Artezuela and her husband. Because of the
dismissal of the case, Artezuela filed a civil case for damages against the Maderazo. The case was dismissed.

Artezuela filed for disbarment against the Maderazo. Artezuela argues that Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to
her interests. While acting as her counsel, Maderazo prepared Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint. The said
document was even printed in Maderazo’s office. Artezuela further averred that it was Maderazo who sought the
dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was with her consent. Maderazo
denied Artezuela’s allegations. However, he admitted that Echavia’s Answer to the Amended Complaint was printed
in his office but denied having prepared the document and having acted as counsel of Echavia.

Case was referred to IBP. IBP investigated the case. IBP found Maderazo guilty of representing conflicting interests, in
violation of Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Ethics.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether Maderazo violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 (conflict of interest) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
(2) Whether Maderazo had a direct hand in the preparation of Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint.

RULING:
YES to both

Maderazo was actually giving advice to Echavias but he was not the counsel of record. Maderazo does not have to
publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s
conflicting interests of record. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading
of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. To require that he also be
counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity,
the highest form of disloyalty.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-client
relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or
discharging inconsistent duties. Good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring lawyer does not make this
rule inoperative. The lawyer is an officer of the court and his actions are governed by the uncompromising rules of
professional ethics.
PNB v Cedo

Regala v Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
PCGG field a case against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Among the defendants were the
ACCRA Law Firm and Raul Roco, also a part of ACCRA. Case alleged that Cojuangco and defendants conspired in
setting up through the use of coco levy funds numerous banks; that ACCRA acted as dummies.
ACCRA performed legal services for clients, with the incidental services where its members acted as stockholders. In
the process, members of ACCRA acquired information relative to assets of clients and their personal and business
circumstances.
PCGG excluded Raul Roco from the complaint as party-defendant because of his undertaking that he will reveal the
identity of the principals for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder in the companies involved.
Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution denying the exclusion of ACCRA members in the complaint as party-
defendants. MR denied. PETs contend: that the exclusion of Roco as party-defendant grants him a favourable
treatment, on the pretext of his alleged undertaking to divulge the identity of his client, giving him an advantage over
ACCRA members; that lawyers are prohibited from revealing the identity of their principal.

ISSUE:
W/N privileged communication between atty and client may be asserted in refusing to disclose the name of ACCRA’s
clients?

RULING:
Yes.

PET’s inclusion as co-defendants is merely being used as leverage to compel them to name their clients and
consequently to enable PCGG to nail these clients -> thus PCGG has no valid cause of action against PETs and should
exclude them from the complaint.
An atty is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on
him by his client. If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self-incrimination, then the flow of
information would be curtailed, thereby rendering the right to counsel practically nugatory.
An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists between
lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of
information.
General rule: a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.

Exception:
1. client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that
client in the very activity which he sought the lawyer’s advice.
2. the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of
the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance.
3. where the nature of the atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged

The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of client’s name would lead to establish said client’s connection
with the very fact in issue of the case.
Link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice/service sought duly established:
clients consulted the PETs regarding structure, framework and set-up of corporations. In turn, PETs gave professional
advice in the form of, among others, deeds of assignment covering client’s shareholdings.
Preparation of documents part of PET’s legal service to clients. Thus PETs have legitimate fear that identifying their
clients would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had been sought. Revelation of client’s name
would provide necessary link for the
prosecution to build its case.
Where a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults atty about it -> falls within
the exception. But where client seeks services of an atty for illicit purposes, seeking advice about how to go around
the law to commit illegal activities -> not covered by privilege.
Purpose of privilege: to avoid fishing expedition by the prosecution. There are lternative sources of information
available to prosecutor w/c do not depend on utilizing defendant’s
counsel as source.
Duration of privilege: exists not only during relationship but extends even after termination.
PCGG failed to show that Roco actually revealed identity of clients.
PCGG failed to show that Roco was treated as a species apart from the rest of ACCRA lawyers
-> no substantial distinctions between him and ACCRA; violates equal protection clause.

Canon 16
Unity Fishing v Atty Macalino
Summary: A lawyer misappropriated money from his client.

Rule of Law: Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.

FACTS:
Atty. Danilo Macalino (D) was hired to represent Frabal Fishing and Ice Plant Corporation against Wheels Distributor,
Inc. Frabal was eventually bought by Unity Fishing Development Corporation (P) during the pendency of the case.

Unity Fishing (P) was evicting Wheels Distributor from their property. Macalino (D), as counsel, advised the Unity
Fishing (P) to severe all contractual relationship with Wheels Distributor and return their security deposit amounting
to P50,000. Macalino (D) volunteered to take the check to Wheels Distributor himself.

Later, another lawyer was hired to replace Macalino (D) and the case of Unity Fishing (P) against Wheels Distributor
was eventually settled. But Unity Fishing (P) was shocked to learn that Wheels Distributor never got the P50,000
security deposit.

After an investigation, Unity Fishing (P) discovered that the check was deposited to Macalino's (D) account and he was
actually the one who withdrew the money.

ISSUE:
Which provision of the Code of Ethics did Atty. Macalino violate?

RULING:
Atty. Macalion (D) violated Canon 16 of the Code of Ethics.

Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.1 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.2 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.

Rule 16.3 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall
have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

Junio v Atty Grupo

FACTS:
Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in Bohol. For no
reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio wanted
the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that he use the money to help defray his
children’s educational expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the
family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junio’s sisters served as Grupo’s household helpers for many
years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a
friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them.
The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal
Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

RULING:
Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity and the
attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took advantage of
his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard conduct of an
attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer
whose conduct serves as an example.
*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with interest at the
legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.

Pelmoka v Judge Diaz Jr

FACTS: Complainant charged respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and judicial proceedings committed in
the following manner:
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) allowing Ester Garampil to withdraw the amount of P20,000.00 from the cash deposit, with the court, considering
that she is not an heir of the deceased; and
(e) xxx

The complainant further alleged that the respondent judge failed to protect his charging lien for his attorney's fees
when he allowed plaintiffs to withdraw their share from the said deposit. He likewise charged respondent judge with
bias and partiality when he allowed all the parties to withdraw their respective shares while the complainant was not
allowed to do the same in so far as his charging lien is concerned.

ISSUE: WON Judge Diaz Jr. was justified in allowing Ester Garampil to withdraw the amount

RULING: No. The respondent should not have allowed the clients of the complainant to withdraw their shares from
the cash deposit without extending ample protection to the latter's claim. This error was compounded by his order
allowing even Ester Garampil to withdraw her share when she did not sign the compromise agreement of July 1, 1981.

It was grossly unfair for the respondent to leave the complainant holding an empty bag, so to speak, after he had
rendered his professional services as counsel to the plaintiffs. True it is that the compromise agreement stipulates
that the parties shall be separately responsible for the payment of the fees for their respective lawyers; nevertheless,
the respondent should not have improvidently allowed the clients of the complainant to withdraw their shares
without first determining his reasonable fees.

WHEREFORE, for his failure to protect the complainant's charging lien, the respondent is hereby reprimanded.

Lemoine v Balon
FACTS:
• Lemoine, the petitioner, is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance.
• His friend, Jesus Garcia, arranged for the engagement of Atty. Balon’s services as his counsel
• Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon
successful recovery. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.
• Since he was leaving the country, Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to
bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s claim as well as to negotiate,
sign, compromise, encash and receive payments
• Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine’s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer
• December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of
P525,000 which was received by Balon
• When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was
offering P350,000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation
• December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it
answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon.
• Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney’s lien
pending Lemoine’s payment of his attorney’s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also
threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the
mentioned agencies.
• Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine, however, he gave no
evidence to such turnover

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
YES.
According to the SC, Atty. Balon violated Canons 1, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21. Specifically, Canon 16 which provides that “a
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.”
Balon violated this and committed misconduct, when he failed to render an account upon receipt of the money and
further, when he failed to deliver such amount to Lemoine.
It is also the duty of the lawyer to surrender such money collected when demanded upon him. Balon violated this
duty when he refuses to return the amount to Lemoine contending that he has a lien on the fund.
The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien, as provided for in Rule 16.03, presupposes that the client agrees
with the amount of attorney’s fees to be charged. In case of disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily
apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees, but rather he can file the necessary action with the
proper court to fix the fees. And in the present case, Lemoine never gave his consent on the proposal of Balon.
It must be noted as well that before receiving the check, Balon proposes a 25% attorney’s fees, after receiving the
check, he was already asking for 50%.
SC found Balon guilty of malpractice, deceit, and gross misconduct, and ordered disbarred.

Canon 17
Rosacia v Atty Bulalacao (canon 21)
FACTS:
On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement, respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as retained
counsel of Tacma Phils., Inc. On October 31, 1990, the lawyer-client relationship between the respondent and the said
corporation was severed. On July, 1991, or nine (9) months after the termination of the respondent's retainer
agreement with Tacma, Phils., Inc, several employees of the corporation consulted the respondent for the purpose of
filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma,
Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf. On
that account, Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of the said corporation filed a complaint for disbarment
dated October 25, 1991, against respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. The Court in a resolution resolved to refer
the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The abovementioned
facts were undisputed as examined by the IBP. The respondent even filed a motion for reconsideration wherein he
admitted that he did commit an act constituting a grave misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney’s oath
and pleading for the court’s compassion and leniency to reduce the penalty of 3 months suspension to a fine or
admonition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent breached his oath of office for representing the employees of his former client, after the
termination of their attorney-client relationship.

RULING:
Yes, The court agrees with the findings of the IBP that the respondent breaches his oath of office. The respondent
violated Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “ a lawyer shall preserve the
confidences of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. The Court reiterates that an attorney
owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney
and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit him to defend another case for other person against his
former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case. It is a measure to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. An attorney becomes familiar with all the facts as well as the weak and strong points of
the case. No opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the
confidential relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the
confidence of the people. Thus, the respondent plea for leniency cannot be granted because a lawyer starting to
establish his stature in the legal profession must dutifully abide by the norms of conduct of the profession. Hence, the
respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.

Lorenzana Food Corp v Daria

FACTS:
Atty. Daria was hired by Lorenzana Food Corporation as its legal counsel and was eventually designated as its personal
manager. In the course of his employment with the corp he was involved in two labor cases:

Hanopol case - A certain Veronica Hanopol who was allegedly illegally dismissed, filed a case against him. During the
initial hearing, Daria and Hanopol agreed to an amicable settlement and set a date for the next meeting.

This was reset after Hanopol did not show up and the Labor Arbiterreset the date further to June 20, 1983. On that
date, Daria was in another hearing and he moved to postpone the Hanopol hearing through a phone message but the
Labor Arbiter did not receive it, hence he considers the case as submitted for decision based on Hanopol’s complaint
and affidavit.

Daria appealed to the NLRC and the case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. Attempts to
have an amicable settlement proved futile. By the time the final hearing was set, Daria had already resigned from the
company and no one appeared for the corp during the Hanopol hearing. Labor arbiter revived his earlier decision
awarding Hanopol with sum of P6,469.80 in labor benefits. New counsel for the corp appealed to the judgment and
this was remanded for further proceedings.

San Juan case - Roberto San Juan is an employee of the corp who was accused of double liquidation and unliquidated
cash advances. He was asked to submit a written explanation and was placed on preventive suspension. He was
required to restitute said amount to the company but upon failure to do so, a complaint of estafa was filed against
him. San Juan resigned and sought the assistance of Daria in preparing his counteraffidavit.

Because of these incidents, LFC files an administrative charge against Daria for negligence and betrayal of former
client’sconfidences.

ISSUE:
Do the acts of Atty. Daria constitute negligence and betrayal of his former client’s confidence?

RULING:
Court says Yes, Daria violated Code of Professional Responsibility and betrayed the confidences of his former client.
He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

Canon 18 provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence; Rule 18.03 provides that a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Because Daria had a responsibility to attend the two scheduledhearings he missed and had he filed the required
position paper for the corporation then at least there would have been no delay in the resolution of the case which
the court states could have been in favor of the corporation. The delay was prejudicial to LFC because it deprived
successor counsel of the time which he should be devoting to other cases of LFC instead of the work left by Daria. The
respondent’s claim that he was able to persuade NLRC on appeal to set aside the first decision is no matter.
Negligence is apparent in the conduct of Daria.

As for preparing the counter-affidavit of San Juan, the court is not convinced with his denial of his participation in the
preparation. His signature was placed on the document and it is clear that thecontention of Daria is a mere
afterthought.

An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also for the relation of
attorney and clienthas terminated. It is not good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in another case other
persons against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct and independent of the former case.